DEVELOPMENT and the ENCLOSURE MOVEMENT in PASTORAL TIBET SINCE the 1980S Ken Bauer

DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENCLOSURE MOVEMENT IN PASTORAL TIBET SINCE THE 1980s Ken Bauer Abstract This article discusses the implementation of development policies in pastoral areas of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) since the reforms of the 1980s. It analyses why certain kinds of interventions - particularly fencing - have been introduced. The rhetoric and reality of markets, technology, degradation and land tenure in the reform era are put into ecological, historical and cultural perspective. The causes and potential consequences of widespread fencing are also considered and, based on these trends, the article speculates on the future development trajectory of pastoral areas in the TAR. Keywords: degradation, development, fencing, land tenure, markets, reforms, Tibet Introduction: China's Economic Reforms Come to Tibet The post-Mao economic reforms engineered by Deng Xiaoping came late to the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), as had many of the policies and political movements initiated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the twentieth century. In 1980, Party General Secretary Hu Yaobang led a high-level 'Working Group' to survey conditions in the TAR. Far from impressed, Hu pointedly criticised the Party's performance. The tour resulted in a damning report that equated China's own rule over Tibet to colonialism, and urged that relief measures and resources be immediately released for development there (Shakya 1999).' Later that year, the People's Republic of China (PRC) initiated a policy known as 'reform and opening up' in the TAR. Among other things, this policy involved a tax amnesty for farmers and nomads, withdrawal of many Han cadres from the administration, and the rehabilitation of educated and high-status Tibetans (Diemberger 2000). These were the first of many significant shifts that culminated in the dissolution of communes and privatisation of coUectivised property such as livestock. The state had reason for anxiety with the coming of reforms, and not just in Tibet.^ Taking the unprecedented step of privatising a centrally plarmed socialist economy, the Party risked losing its leading role in Chinese society. Some observers have argued that the sheer volume and speed with which communes were privatised after 1978 belies the notion that the Party initiated or was in full NOMADIC PEOPLES NS (2005) VOLUME 9 ISSUES 1 & 2 53 Development and Enclosure in Pastoral Tibet Since the 1980s control of decollectivisation (cf. CroU 1994, Yep 1998, Oi 1999). Instead, this argument goes, the announcements of reform were a de facto endorsement by the state of the lead already taken by China's peasants. Yet, the tenor and direction of political, social and economic change in Tibet has been more tightly controlled than other parts of mainland China. While the informal privatisation of communal property was well under way in other parts of the People's Republic, the communes remained intact in the TAR until the 1980s (Goldstein and Beall 1991). Still, once reforms began, the state apparatus in Tibet quickly adopted the propaganda and policies emanating from Beijing, with Tibetan cadres dutifully broadcasting Deng's promises of reforrns and 'the glories of getting rich'. These ideas were based on the economic assumption that production in the rural sectors would increase if the market's potential was unleashed and science was introduced to modernise traditional practices. In the sections that follow, we will see how these reforms played out in pastoral townships in Tibet.^ Study Area This research was conducted between 2002 and 2004 in the TAR. Most of the evidence that supports this paper is drawn from translated govemment documents and interviews in Porong Township (Nyelam County, Shigatse Prefecture). This township is situated just north of the Himalayas that form the boundary between China and Nepal; Mt. Shishapangma (8,013 m), the world's fourteenth highest peak, falls within the borders of this basin, which drains into Peiku Tso lake (latitude: 28° 21' N, longitude: 85° 47' E). The township is located in the buffer zone of Chomolongma (Mt. Everest) Conservation Area and the southern road to Mt. Kailash passes through the area. According to Nyelam County govemment documents (Nyelam County 2003), the average altitude of Porong is 4,300-4,600 m, average temperature is 0.70 °C, and annual rainfall ranges between 200 and 236 mm. Porong Township is the largest animal husbandry production area in Nyelam County and comprises a third of its land area. Local cadres reported in 2003 that the total numbers of animals was 54,065 (6,643 yak and cattle; 37,789 sheep; 9,157 goats; 476 horses). There are nine administrative villages containing some 380 households, with a total population of just over 2,000 people; average per capita income was US $228 (also in 2003). In addition to research in Porong Township, interviews were conducted in pastoral areas of Nag Chu and Lhasa Prefectures, as well as the urban centres of Lhasa, Shigatse and Nyelam. 54 NOMADIC PEOPLES NS (2005) VOLUME 9 ISSUES 1 & 2 Ken Bauer The Reform Era Comes to Pastoral Tibet According to informants in Porong Township, privatisation was announced in 1981 at a meeting of all the commune leaders within Nyelam County. Everyone was given documents stating that the townships could choose between privatisation and continued collectivisation. The leaders retumed to their communities and presented villagers with their options. Not surprisingly, these pastoralists decided to go the road of privatisation. A village headman put it this way: During the commune, lazy people were happy. The leaders didn't know how to motivate them. Overall, life was not good. We weren't happy. During the first years of the communes we had good results. But after a few years, people stopped completing work assignments. Good workers lost motivation and production decreased. People didn't take responsibility. They didn't care. The leaders also cared less. The collective property - like ropes and barley bags - kept getting neglected or stolen. Our village got poorer and poorer. Then we broke the 'iron bowl' and that was very good." If that hadn't happened, we would have lost all our animals. After privatisation, things improved. People took responsibility and worked very hard. But the proclamation of privatisation did not guarantee its timely implementation. After the reforms were announced in 1981, a group of village leaders from Porong travelled to the county headquarters to seek approval for dismantling their work teams and redistributing livestock. But their requests were stymied and only one work team was given permission to do so. This delayed start may be attributed to the initial problems faced by the govemment in actually implementing the decollectivisation of animals. At first, the privatisation policy was described as a 'lending system'. It left ambiguous how long these animal loans would last: the result was that many animals were quickly slaughtered by pastoralists. An all- county meeting was subsequently held — livestock would henceforth belong to households. A former commune leader recalled a govemment official saying: Before, we loaned the animals to you. Now we are giving them to you. We won't change this policy for a long time. In this manner, the 'complete responsibility' system was announced and the PRC Instituted sweeping reforms to its administration of Tibet's pastoral economy by dismantling the communes and privatising livestock. Animals were divided according to the number of members in each household (i.e., infants, children and seniors received the same share as adults). The actual distribution of livestock was carried out by village headmen and county policemen - an interesting combination of legitimation through traditional symbols of authority and the state's threat of force. Local informants reported that this division of livestock was closely scrutinised by community members and widely perceived to be fair. Along with these moves, the commune work teams and production brigades were dissolved and NOMADIC PEOPLES NS (2005) VOLUME 9 ISSUES 1 & 2 55 Development and Enclosure in Pastoral Tibet Since the 1980s reorganised into smaller units that better matched the scale at which livelihood actions had been organised prior to the 1950s. The three former administrative levels - the commune, production brigade, work team - were replaced by the township, administrative village and natural village, respectively (Ho 2000,2001).^ 'To Get Rich is Glorious': The Push for Greater Production and Market Specialisation A set of documents published by Nyelam County govemment during the 1980s is illustrative of the period after reforms. These documents are discussed below. One of the government's main tools of public education during the reform era was the mass distribution of booklets to village-level cadres; in tum, these leaders were directed to hold meetings and read to villagers from these edifying brochures. A senior official gave the author one such booklet, published in 1984, to review and photograph. The booklet, entitled ^Examples of the Nyelam County CCP Leading the Masses to Change from Poor to Rich', was subsequently translated. This booklet provides narrative accounts fi^om different townships in Nyelam County: tales of individuals who had gone the way of privatisation and succeeded. Each essay gives examples of peasant families who introduced new technologies that dramatically improved their production and their incomes. A selection of titles exemplifies the gist of these essays: - Dram Township has gone the path of the rich by diversifying its economy - How Sholbargang village changed immediately by using science to support livestock production - Tsangling Township increased production by threefold - The Communist Party's get rich policy helped the family of Uncle Dragpa grow golden wings During this period, the Party was at pains to emphasise its vanguard position and these essays consistently seek to reinforce the impression that the CCP was still forging the people's path to a better life.

Load more